“The reason Congressional approval is important is that it provides the public process so sorely lacking from the negotiation of the agreement itself,” wrote Sean Flynn, an intellectual property lecturer at American University and one of the letter’s organizers, in an e-mail to Ars. “There has not been a single public hearing on the ACTA text and its impact on US law, for example. As the EU, Australian, and other parliaments provide public processes on ACTA for their own citizens, now is the time for our government to provide the same.”

This letter is only the lastest salvo in a war on ACTA that has accelerated across the globe. Also on Wednesday, Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta said that his government would not ratify ACTA—despite the fact that the European Union, of which Romania is a member, did sign it on his country’s behalf. Anti-ACTA protests have taken place in the Polish parliament and in cities throughout Europe.

Ars has reached out to the governments of New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Morocco (other ACTA signatories) for their latest positions on ACTA, but as of press time had not received a reply. Six ACTA members need to sign before the agreement enters into force.

UPDATE: Matthew Hawkins, the first secretary to the Office of the Ambassador at the Embassy of New Zealand in Washington, D.C. wrote to Ars on Wednesday afternoon with this comment: "The New Zealand Government agreed to sign ACTA in June 2011, but to consider the issue of ratification separately at a later date. To date, the Government has not yet taken a decision on ratification because there are a number of parliamentary processes that still need to be worked through, including further public consultation."

Amusing is the fact that "Time Warner, one of the largest media companies in the world and parent of Warner Brothers, owns the rights to the image and is paid a licensing fee with the sale of each mask." NYT 08-28-2011

Amusing is the fact that "Time Warner, one of the largest media companies in the world and parent of Warner Brothers, owns the rights to the image and is paid a licensing fee with the sale of each mask." NYT 08-28-2011

Normally, the United States Constitution delegates authority to sign treaties to Congress, which can also give that authority to the White House through either an “ex ante” or an “ex post” Congressional-Executive Agreement.

No, Congress cannot. The Senate must consent with 2/3rds majority to all Treaties. There is no power to delegate that to the President.

I just don't get how politicians can justify discussing something like this, which has no security or public safety impact, behind closed doors? Why not have the entire process and discussion out in the open? What's the worst that can happen? The public disagrees and reminds the politicians who put them in power? In that case they must Do Their Job and either revise so the public is appeased or drop the matter entirely.

If they don't do this.... how can any of these countries be called a democracy?

I'm so opposed to ACTA. Yet, I'm simultaneously opposed to Guy Fawkes masks. I often wonder if people actually know what Fawkes intended prior to his execution (or that he took on the surname Guido - yeah - Guido, mothersuckers!!!).

Anywho - ACTA is just sickening, as is, 'The Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement'. Yet, we seem to be on a path towards enacting both. Gagging on vomit as I type.

Normally, the United States Constitution delegates authority to sign treaties to Congress, which can also give that authority to the White House through either an “ex ante” or an “ex post” Congressional-Executive Agreement.

No, Congress cannot. The Senate must consent with 2/3rds majority to all Treaties. There is no power to delegate that to the President.

"I hate the thing those guys got off their ass to go protest almost as much as the mask they wear while they fight for my internet freedom. Imma sit here and comment on how much I hate that mask. That'll help."Seems our extremely handsome internet heroes have disgruntled some butthurt wannabe trolls.

"I hate the thing those guys got off their ass to go protest almost as much as the mask they wear while they fight for my internet freedom. Imma sit here and comment on how much I hate that mask. That'll help."Seems our extremely handsome internet heroes have disgruntled some butthurt wannabe trolls.

Yeah, this is of course the most logical conclusion to draw off their posts. Everyone knows that posting on the internet precludes you from having time to do any other activity.

Amusing is the fact that "Time Warner, one of the largest media companies in the world and parent of Warner Brothers, owns the rights to the image and is paid a licensing fee with the sale of each mask." NYT 08-28-2011

I'm so opposed to ACTA. Yet, I'm simultaneously opposed to Guy Fawkes masks. I often wonder if people actually know what Fawkes intended prior to his execution (or that he took on the surname Guido - yeah - Guido, mothersuckers!!!).

Anywho - ACTA is just sickening, as is, 'The Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement'. Yet, we seem to be on a path towards enacting both. Gagging on vomit as I type.

"I hate the thing those guys got off their ass to go protest almost as much as the mask they wear while they fight for my internet freedom. Imma sit here and comment on how much I hate that mask. That'll help."Seems our extremely handsome internet heroes have disgruntled some butthurt wannabe trolls.

Yeah, this is of course the most logical conclusion to draw off their posts. Everyone knows that posting on the internet precludes you from having time to do any other activity.

Way to miss the (logical) point, which is that in spite of universal disdain for ACTA and it's ilk, some people who refuse to become informed on greater scope of Anon's actions as a whole are so butthurt over a single action (usually the PSN debacle) that they refuse to appreciate what Anon is doing for them - right now - to the point of making negative comments about Anon rather than ACTA. Or sometimes both - "I'm getting my dig in somehow."But maybe cognitive dissonance precludes one from any other activity. I hear jenkem helps.

What's the worst that can happen? The public disagrees and reminds the politicians who put them in power?

From the politician's perspective, the worst that can happen is the campaign money dries up because the media companies don't feel they're getting their money's worth.

Remember that you and I and probably every other Ars reader lives in a bubble of information that includes stuff like ACTA. We are also not the majority. If we stopped 100 people on the street and asked them what they thought of ACTA, the vast majority would have no idea what I was talking about.

That campaign money buys a lot of commercial time to convince stupid people in battleground states to vote one way or another based on nonsense. It would be a wonderful world if we stood candidates up on a stage and made them succinctly answer straightforward questions about how they're going to govern, and then held them to that, and based our votes on that.

If the EU can't figure out how to rectify its currency fail but decides to take the time to ratify acta I will begin to feel even more disenfranchised.

Yeah, as is well known there can only ever be one and exactly one law/problem being discussed in the whole EU.

Anyhow considering that so far ACTA isn't through (and most probably won't) shows that the EU isn't as bought as the US at least. Well one can hope...

Lesigh it was more an observation of what policies make it through to completion and about priorities than about the legislative capacity of the Council and gabbing time of the parliament.

However, the EU has been putting off this financial crisis for years now and judging by the lack of a plan at current ANY additional time spent dealing with the euro crisis might well have been beneficial rather than discussing ACTA. Of course dealing with the financial crisis is actually difficult and unrewarding to the individuals involved (hey Mr Sarkozy and the Last Greek government! and Angela Merkel when the German people are told to spend a further fortune saving Greece and Ireland) whereas dealing with ACTA is simply a matter of securing futures for the politicians and civil servants involved so go figure.

But you know, take my comment on face-value and out of context all night if you like, knock yourself out.

Oh and the legislative body of the EU is incredibly bought it barely touches democracy anyway, its just that some of the member nation governments have realised that they can get re-elected on the nationalist vote by standing up to it.

I like the EU courts though, those judges seem to be pretty clued up in a lot of cases though some of their decisions clash with national interest they are only interpreting the laws they are given!

If the EU can't figure out how to rectify its currency fail but decides to take the time to ratify acta I will begin to feel even more disenfranchised.

The Euro is still much stronger than the dollar (25-33% higher, where they started equal). The trouble the Euro is facing means that it _might_ become almost as weak as the US dollar. Then again, Europe is not in anywhere near the same economic problems as the US, so that probably won't happen unless the healthy countries leave the Euro-zone (currently politically unlikely).

The Euro is downright weird. If they simply wanted to help with inter-european trade, they could used it as a common trade currency without making it the official national currency in the various nations. This would mean that a company could announce wholesale prices in Euro, while still each nation had their own internal currency. In recent years, this line of thinking has taken a more sinister bend as i learn what power a currency can hold over the capability of self direction in a community. This leads me to wonder if the Euro is as much a push for a pan-european nation as the military actions of previous eras. A United States of Europe if you will.

Lesigh it was more an observation of what policies make it through to completion and about priorities than about the legislative capacity of the Council and gabbing time of the parliament.

It's just a fallacy to assume that because some people are working on X, nobody can be working on Y. The overlap between the two topics really isn't that large, for the most part completely different people are working on it.

Also while the financial crisis is much more prominent in the media (and the chiefs of state, council - basically anything) than ACTA anyhow, clearly we can't focus on only one topic and ignore everything else.

I'm so opposed to ACTA. Yet, I'm simultaneously opposed to Guy Fawkes masks. I often wonder if people actually know what Fawkes intended prior to his execution (or that he took on the surname Guido - yeah - Guido, mothersuckers!!!).(

At this point the Guy Fawkes mask has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes himself. The mask is just a symbol for anonymity, get over it.

I'm so opposed to ACTA. Yet, I'm simultaneously opposed to Guy Fawkes masks. I often wonder if people actually know what Fawkes intended prior to his execution (or that he took on the surname Guido - yeah - Guido, mothersuckers!!!).(

At this point the Guy Fawkes mask has nothing to do with Guy Fawkes himself. The mask is just a symbol for anonymity, get over it.

That why I choose to use Guy Fawkes mask in anonymous orgies all the time!

The Euro is downright weird. If they simply wanted to help with inter-european trade, they could used it as a common trade currency without making it the official national currency in the various nations. This would mean that a company could announce wholesale prices in Euro, while still each nation had their own internal currency. In recent years, this line of thinking has taken a more sinister bend as i learn what power a currency can hold over the capability of self direction in a community. This leads me to wonder if the Euro is as much a push for a pan-european nation as the military actions of previous eras. A United States of Europe if you will.

Sounds like what I deal with in the military: I live in Germany, all my bills are in euro, almost everything I buy is in euro, but all I'm paid is in dollars (including benefits which are euro amounts, converted into dollars two weeks before they're actually paid to me). It's pure fail. I lose a significant amount of money due to the currency exchanges, one month as much as 300 USD thanks to the exchange rate going to shit between them calculating my housing benefits, and getting paid them in dollars two weeks later, which I then pay to my landlord in euro again.

The whole point of the euro was to eliminate currency exchanges. Currency exchange is _never_ a good thing, there are always transactional losses, in addition to the change in the quantity and relative prices in an area.

The euro, as a whole, is a good thing. The problem arises because individual member nations can impact its value negatively, through actions that don't have a ton of accountability or oversight by the EU as a whole (they're all sovereign nations, after all.) The US states can have similar impact on the value of the dollar, but there is far more oversight, accountability, and authority by the federal government to limit their individual actions and negative impact. That said, the US has clearly shown it has no problem with ridiculous inflation and devaluation of our currency in international trade. Rather amusing that the US dollar, as weak as it is, is still an international standard for trade (as far as I understand it).

The Euro is downright weird. If they simply wanted to help with inter-european trade, they could used it as a common trade currency without making it the official national currency in the various nations. This would mean that a company could announce wholesale prices in Euro, while still each nation had their own internal currency. In recent years, this line of thinking has taken a more sinister bend as i learn what power a currency can hold over the capability of self direction in a community. This leads me to wonder if the Euro is as much a push for a pan-european nation as the military actions of previous eras. A United States of Europe if you will.

Sounds like what I deal with in the military: I live in Germany, all my bills are in euro, almost everything I buy is in euro, but all I'm paid is in dollars (including benefits which are euro amounts, converted into dollars two weeks before they're actually paid to me). It's pure fail. I lose a significant amount of money due to the currency exchanges, one month as much as 300 USD thanks to the exchange rate going to shit between them calculating my housing benefits, and getting paid them in dollars two weeks later, which I then pay to my landlord in euro again.

The whole point of the euro was to eliminate currency exchanges. Currency exchange is _never_ a good thing, there are always transactional losses, in addition to the change in the quantity and relative prices in an area.

The euro, as a whole, is a good thing. The problem arises because individual member nations can impact its value negatively, through actions that don't have a ton of accountability or oversight by the EU as a whole (they're all sovereign nations, after all.) The US states can have similar impact on the value of the dollar, but there is far more oversight, accountability, and authority by the federal government to limit their individual actions and negative impact. That said, the US has clearly shown it has no problem with ridiculous inflation and devaluation of our currency in international trade. Rather amusing that the US dollar, as weak as it is, is still an international standard for trade (as far as I understand it).

Sounds to me like your real problem is that your payed in one currency and billed in another.

Not what would be happening with what i am thinking about.

People on the street would rarely if ever handle Euro directly, depending on how much they travel. The Euro would be a cross border non-national currency for handing large scale trades.

Hell, Keynes himself wanted something similar set up after WW2. But was stonewalled by the US delegation that wanted the US Dollar to be the de facto world currency.

The Euro is downright weird. If they simply wanted to help with inter-european trade, they could used it as a common trade currency without making it the official national currency in the various nations. This would mean that a company could announce wholesale prices in Euro, while still each nation had their own internal currency. In recent years, this line of thinking has taken a more sinister bend as i learn what power a currency can hold over the capability of self direction in a community. This leads me to wonder if the Euro is as much a push for a pan-european nation as the military actions of previous eras. A United States of Europe if you will.

Sounds like what I deal with in the military: I live in Germany, all my bills are in euro, almost everything I buy is in euro, but all I'm paid is in dollars (including benefits which are euro amounts, converted into dollars two weeks before they're actually paid to me). It's pure fail. I lose a significant amount of money due to the currency exchanges, one month as much as 300 USD thanks to the exchange rate going to shit between them calculating my housing benefits, and getting paid them in dollars two weeks later, which I then pay to my landlord in euro again.

The whole point of the euro was to eliminate currency exchanges. Currency exchange is _never_ a good thing, there are always transactional losses, in addition to the change in the quantity and relative prices in an area.

The euro, as a whole, is a good thing. The problem arises because individual member nations can impact its value negatively, through actions that don't have a ton of accountability or oversight by the EU as a whole (they're all sovereign nations, after all.) The US states can have similar impact on the value of the dollar, but there is far more oversight, accountability, and authority by the federal government to limit their individual actions and negative impact. That said, the US has clearly shown it has no problem with ridiculous inflation and devaluation of our currency in international trade. Rather amusing that the US dollar, as weak as it is, is still an international standard for trade (as far as I understand it).

Sounds to me like your real problem is that your payed in one currency and billed in another.

Not what would be happening with what i am thinking about.

People on the street would rarely if ever handle Euro directly, depending on how much they travel. The Euro would be a cross border non-national currency for handing large scale trades.

Hell, Keynes himself wanted something similar set up after WW2. But was stonewalled by the US delegation that wanted the US Dollar to be the de facto world currency.

Do you have any comprehension how much travel goes on over here? lol People would be exchangign currency all the time. Picture a United States with different currency for each individual state, the scale is about the same. What would happen? Either A) the strongest currency would be preferred, or B) the official "international" currency would be preferred, and in either A or B, the others would eventually be discarded.

The book "The Unincorporated Man" actually has a currency scheme somewhat like you describe, in which there is no national currency, it's all corporate credits, based on the stock valuation of a company (i.e. non-fiat currency). It has interesting results, but the same issues. Different prices for different things depending on currency, wide variation between valuation of different currency, transaction and exchange losses. Not to mention the issue all tourists run into: appropriately evaluating prices. If you're used to the number 60 sitting on a video game case, would you balk when seeing the same 60 on a game in europe? Nevermind that the price difference is significant since we're talking 60 dollars vs 60 euros.

An even better example of the price evaluation issue is this: the average for a beer in the US, at a nightclub, is around 3-5 dollars, as high as 7 or 8 in some. Here small pubs are usually around 2 euro, some nightclubs as much as 5 euro. Sounds like a good deal, right? Except it actually works out to being more; but it does SEEM like it's less.

The ideal would be a single, global currency, but this is impractical with a fiat currency and the rampant ultracapitalism we have in our world. The issue being complained about with the Euro and Greece would be magnified if all countries were involved.

Do you have any comprehension how much travel goes on over here? lol People would be exchangign currency all the time. Picture a United States with different currency for each individual state, the scale is about the same. What would happen? Either A) the strongest currency would be preferred, or B) the official "international" currency would be preferred, and in either A or B, the others would eventually be discarded.

Here USA or here Europe? Most of the exchange would happen automatically anyways by ways of banks.

And USA is a very special case as there is a single language for not only it but also its northeren neighbor. Europe have what, 10-20 languages?

Do you have any comprehension how much travel goes on over here? lol People would be exchangign currency all the time. Picture a United States with different currency for each individual state, the scale is about the same. What would happen? Either A) the strongest currency would be preferred, or B) the official "international" currency would be preferred, and in either A or B, the others would eventually be discarded.

Here USA or here Europe? Most of the exchange would happen automatically anyways by ways of banks.

And USA is a very special case as there is a single language for not only it but also its northeren neighbor. Europe have what, 10-20 languages?

Here Europe. The fact that banks would handle the exchanges is irrelevant. Banks handle all of my exchanges too, and I lose money twice each time (the fees for the currency exchange -- no ATM fees, thankfully -- and the fact that the dollar is toilet paper right now). It doesn't matter if you're paying with physical currency or a debit / EC card, what matters is the currency exchanging, and all the other issues I already mentioned. They fuck you over.

As to your question, probably around 10 big languages (with dialects of each, of course, just like the US has). But guess what? Nearly all of them learn English at school starting at around the equivalent of the 3rd or 4th grade. A significant number also speak German, especially in the east. Even if you don't speak the same language, what has that to do with any of it? Absolutely nothing.

Hell, the owner of the pub in my village is from one of the Slavik nations northeast of Germany (can't remember which one.) She speaks Russian, German, Arabic (not sure which type, her husband's from Syria, so I assume whatever they speak there), and I want to say 2 or 3 others. She also seems to understand more English than she says she does.